Friday, March 23, 2012

After going back and forth on this matter, I now think it is
likely that Tripp, the son of Bristol Palin and Levi Johnston, was born after
the officially given date of Dec. 27, 2008. Or if he was born on that date,
then maybe something usual happened – for example, perhaps the birth was
induced early. Keep in mind that the media would not see Tripp for nearly seven
weeks after the alleged date of birth.

The issue is important, of course, because the McCain
team, at the Republican National Convention in early September
2008, used the claim that Bristol was five months pregnant to argue that
she could not be Trig's mother, since Trig allegedly was born in April (an
allegation for which there is no real proof).

Is there a key to the truth? I think so. Here is the photo of
Bristol at the RNC:

Bristol obviously has padding in the bosom area. But what about the belly? For you Photoshop freaks, here's the picture after some extreme adjustments with the color-curves controls to help show details:

Wow! Did they really just strap a round pillow to her midsection? It sure looks like it. Note how that round shape presses against the dress in the middle of the stomach area, but then there seems to be a space to the side where the material is loose. I don't think real pregnant bellies take that shape. Nor do your better fake-pregnancy empathy bellies.

Also, that baby bump seems to defy gravity by riding so high on her stomach. Here is the RNC picture, now lightened, shown next to an Oct. 14 video capture of Bristol from an MSNBC newscast:

Note how much lower the belly bump on the right, which presumably is genuine, seems to be. What I imagine happened is that the pillow (or whatever) was placed correctly to start out with, but all Bristol had to do was sit down once and the material would be forced upward. (That's also what probably happened to Sarah's padding on March 26 at the Alaska State Museum, where her "baby bump" seemed much too high.)

So this really was a last-minute amateur job of making Bristol look five-months pregnant. Meghan McCain revealed that the Palins confiscated one of her dresses – Meghan, who is voluptuous, would have filled out that dress naturally.

Supporting the idea that Bristol is padded in the bosom and belly in the photo above is this photo from August 24, less than two weeks earlier:

Let's enlarge the midsection of this photo and adjust color to show details:

Bristol seems to have something heavy in the pocket of her sweatshirt or jacket – I'm guessing it's a camera – and it's pulling the material straight down. But the garment at the low point is a few inches away from Bristol's pants, so I suppose there is enough room for, say, a three or three-and-a-half month baby bump to be obscured; perhaps that was the point of wearing that loose-fitting garment.

Of course, even if Bristol was four months pregnant as of the start of the RNC on Sept. 1, that would not absolutely rule her out as Trig's mother. She had to be presented as at least five months along. And that called for extra padding.

The fact that the Palins and McCains agreed to let Bristol wear Meghan's dress while padded to fill it out suggests some real last-minute scrambling just before the start of the RNC. The McCain team surely knew of the birth hoax rumors before they all gathered in Minneapolis, and I suspect they knew of the hoax itself. They did not know that the hoax story would burn across the Internet after ArcXIX, on August 28, accused Sarah at the Daily Kos site of faking the birth. And maybe they did not know about Bristol's second pregnancy till they all met in Minneapolis.

What I suspect is that the McCain team brilliantly improvised by dreaming up the five-months-pregnant Bristol gambit. And by doing so they perhaps saved the campaign from crashing and burning in early September. Instead, the campaign slowly came unravelled as they, and America, learned how frighteningly ill-equipped Sarah Palin would be to one day, in the event of McCain's death, serve as president.

10 comments:

What if Bristol already "had" Tripp just prior to the RNC and she was post-partum at this point? That could be a reason for the extra padding, especially if she was lactating. The reason why I bring this up is that in the interview with Greta VS on 2/16/09 Tripp looks really big for a 6-week old newborn: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,494205,00.html - Here is a pic http://servantsheartconservative.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/bristol-tripp-feb-2009.jpg. Also in the interview with Matt Lauer on May 6, 2009 where Tripp is "out cold" he would be about 4-1/2 months old, and he looks BIG. Heres the link: http://video.today.msnbc.msn.com/today/30597400#30597400. This is certainly a tangled web of lies that the Palins created. Thank you for you efforts Professor Sharlott.

2. Not sure whether we believe the Tank/Levi story of a too-big toddler who Levi called Tripp.

In the end, neither Bristol, Tripp, nor even Trig is truly the story: the story is the hoax of Palin lying about her pregnancy. Without any need to bring anyone into it except but the perp -- SP. Her responsibility, her story. I'd rather the story be about SP and her enablers than SP and her family.

It would also be helpful if we could examine the photos of BP from the Dayton, Ohio rally in late Aug.'08 when McCain introduced SP (and family) as his running mate. I think this was a few days before it was announced that BP was 5 months pregnant.

@ Amy1- as a political strategy, I agree that the major point IS the fake pregnancy hoax perpetrated by SP and others. However, I think we need to keep shaking the tree, "this way and that way," because critical mass has not yet been achieved.

CaL -- I agree. It's almost as if we need double bookkeepping, or two web sites: -- one that is simple for a newbie to grasp, without a lot of loose ends and tinfoil-hat talk-- and another that has all the details and blind alleys for us long-term hoax analysts. Because one person's random detail can turn into another person's connected dot, and then the scales fall from our eyes. Like when someone first lightened the Mar 14 photo.

I wish we could get Audrey, cajunboy, ArcXIX, and some of the old timers to to give us their summary, their take, at this point. Lisa Demer, where are you? I do hope that ALL these folks (and many more I am forgetting to mention right now) are reading. I think of the whole total group of us almost each time I comment.

I really believe that Tripp was born way before what was reported. The pictures of Tripp shown on screen during the GVS interview in Feb. 09 just don't look to be of a 7 week old infant. In one picture, he appears to be holding his head up but even if his head is being supported by an unseen hand those chubby cheeks (jowls, I call them)do not fit a baby of that age. There are pictures that are supposed to be from July '09 - I'm sure most everyone who follows babygate has seen them - where Tripp is wearing a blue toboggan and his face looks much the same as in the pic shown during the GVS interview.

Here is a link to the picture that was shown on air during the GVS interview.

http://tinypic.com/r/2iqxpp2/5

What I think is most likely is that Tripp and Trig are fraternal twins born prematurely which allowed for them to be presented as younger than their real age.

I have always been intrigued by the vagueness of the date of Tripp's birth - and I think that he is central to the whole mystery. His odd name - which apparently links him to a person in Todd's circle - and the way that in photos he and Trig always look the same age. Also, bloggers who look at the uncertain, and seemingly fake, progress of Brisol's pregnancy, have been attacked and silenced - they seem to face more opposition than Trig truthers.

Ha Brad- I cannot decide if your post script is serious or in jest. You'd like to think that "the Palins wouldn't distort reality to that degree." That's ALL the Palins are about- distorting reality!!! They are complete and total frauds and their "story" is bullshit. We know this. We know that they've faked a pregnancy. We know that they've lied about many other things. Why assume that they have some sort of a moral line in the sand? : ))

OK, that being said, I confess that I am still quite uncertain about BP's pregnancy. The only thing that I am sure of is that there is something wrong with the story. I like the photos that Brad has comparing BP and MMcC. It is reasonable to hypothesize that BP borrowed that black dress from her. But why -- didn't the GOP spend mega bucks to clothe the whole Palin clan? I am wondering if there was a last minute spill or baby spit up or something like that. In other words, we all agree that BP is padded there, but maybe the reason for this is not so important. (I'm just guessing.)

I am interested in following photos of BP from spring '08 through the fall. Do we know for sure that the photo of BP with SP at the store check out is dated correctly(the one above with grey sweater)? That baby bump/sway back looks like the real thing to me. Is it more likely that BP was further along than 5 months and the GOP did not want any attention focused on a teenager giving birth during the campaign?Can we get a better look at those tarmac photos of BP? Also when, EXACTLY, did the McC campaign announce that BP was 5 months preggers, before or after the tarmac photos?

@conscious at last - I agree that the pic of Bristol with the sway back looks realistic but we must remember that picture was taken during the campaign. You can bet that during the campaign Bristol had the best empathy belly available. The really good ones are weighted so that the wearer. often the daddy-to-be, can really empathize with what their baby mama is experiencing.